Wednesday, November 18, 2015

We actually haven't had much to go on recently as far as Holyrood voting intention polling is concerned - there was the TNS poll last week, but as usual much of the fieldwork for that was already out of date by the time we saw it. So in a sense the new Ipsos-Mori telephone poll for STV can be regarded as the first tentative indication of whether the recent unionist propaganda campaign about tax credits has had any effect. The SNP lead has dipped by 5% (albeit it still stands at an astonishingly healthy 30%), but the snag is that the last comparable poll was the best part of three months ago, so if the slippage is real, it's impossible to pinpoint exactly when it took place.Constituency ballot :

Regional list ballot :SNP 46% (-4)Labour 19% (-1)Conservatives 16% (+4)Liberal Democrats 8% (+1)Greens 7% (-1) The TNS poll conducted at roughly the same time as the last Ipsos-Mori poll had the SNP on 58% of the constituency vote - exactly the same as in the new TNS poll. The two most plausible ways of reconciling the two firms' divergent findings are that either a) SNP support has dropped somewhat, and it largely happened after the TNS fieldwork finished, or b) SNP support hasn't dropped, and the changes shown by Ipsos-Mori are margin of error "noise". There are intuitive reasons for suspecting that the latter might be the case, not least the fact that the dramatic increase in Tory support is so unexpected. It's surely pretty unlikely that a large chunk of SNP support has gone direct to the Tories, so to make much sense of the trend you'd have to assume that most of those votes have instead gone to Labour, but that Labour's gains have been almost perfectly offset by losses to the Tories. You could, to be fair, make a perfectly plausible case for that scenario, given that Jeremy Corbyn is supposed to have appeal to left-wingers, and is a repellent to "moderate" unionists who used to love Jim Murphy. But the problem is that no other pollster has shown any real sign of it happening (at least not on this scale). Ipsos-Mori are unusual in that they don't weight by past vote recall, which makes their results slightly more prone to volatility. At this stage, I would suggest that's the most likely explanation for the apparent SNP-Tory swing, but obviously the jury is still out until we hear from other firms.

People who write RISE press releases might want to note that the SNP are now just 5% higher on the constituency vote than they were in the 2011 election, and just 2% higher on the list. The silly idea that the SNP are certain not to require any list seats to retain their majority can hopefully now be allowed to die a dignified and long-overdue death. Let's not forget, the constituency results in 2011 left them requiring a minimum of TWELVE list seats for a bare majority of one.

A lot of people are pointing out that the optimistic chatter in the right-wing media about the Tories overtaking Labour as the largest opposition party suddenly doesn't look quite so fanciful, with the gap between the two parties now standing at just 2% on the constituency ballot, and 3% on the list. I'm still fairly sceptical - one swallow doesn't make a summer, and all that. Or perhaps I should say two swallows, because YouGov reported an even tighter race for second place a few weeks ago. But until there's at least a couple of polls actually showing the Tories overtaking Labour, I'd suggest our prospective new Leader of the Opposition would be extremely premature in preening herself too much. As you'll see in the Poll of Polls below, the average Labour lead over the Tories on the list vote (which is undoubtedly the more important vote in this respect) is still a very significant 6.6%.

I always keep my eyes peeled for extreme examples of weighting, and the one that leaps out at me the most in this poll is that public-sector workers - who are somewhat more likely to vote SNP than the rest of the sample - have been sharply downweighted from 185 to 98. Off the top of my head, I can't think of a reason why public-sector workers would be so heavily over-represented in the unweighted sample.

There's no sign in STV's report that Ipsos-Mori asked the independence question again. That doesn't necessarily mean they didn't, because the results are sometimes staggered over a couple of days. Having said that, TNS didn't bother following up their own astonishing independence poll from September, so I won't be surprised either way. If independence numbers do appear tomorrow, we should probably brace ourselves for a reported fall in the Yes vote - because if sampling variation has caused the number of SNP supporters in this poll to drop significantly, it's highly likely it will have also caused the number of independence supporters in the poll to drop.

What we do have today are Scottish voting intention figures for the EU referendum, which STV have rather oddly decided to run as the headline story...

Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?

Remain 65%
Leave 22% That's billed as the best ever result for 'Remain' in a Scottish poll from any firm, but of course we're well used to the Scottish results diverging sharply from the more finely-balanced Britain-wide position. That said, Bernard Ponsonby should be reported to the Polling Police for trying to compare this poll to the new Britain-wide Survation poll showing a mere 2% Remain lead, because that one was conducted among a volunteer online polling panel. It's been clearly established that the online method produces much, much better results for Leave.

* * *

SCOT GOES POP POLL OF POLLS I haven't updated the Poll of Polls since mid-October, so last week's TNS poll is introduced into the sample alongside the new Ipsos-Mori poll. That explains why Labour have crept up slightly, in spite of flatlining with Ipsos-Mori.

(The Poll of Polls is based on a rolling average of the most recent poll from each of the firms that have reported Scottish Parliament voting intention numbers over the previous three months, and that adhere to British Polling Council rules. At present, there are five - YouGov, TNS, Survation, Panelbase and Ipsos-Mori. Whenever a new poll is published, it replaces the last poll from the same company in the sample.)

It seems to be another piece of evidence (By-elections, YouGov, subsamples) suggesting that there has been a swing from Labour to the Conservatives, since the General Election in May. The only exception seems to be the TNS polls, which suggest the opposite.Any thoughts?

Oh Dear. The Conservative share is getting awfully close to Labour. That must be a bit of concern to SLAB, given the likely shy tory factor. Are we seeing a wee bit of repositioning of the unionist vote?

If you want to oppose a left wing nationalist party, you vote for a right wing unionist party. Also, Corbyn is a disgrace. Labour may yet get a tactical vote out of me. But my patience is wearing thin.

I'm struck by the irony that, if the tories do leapfrog labour, it will be largely down to labour's demonising of conservatism during their dominant years - failing to consider that one day they may actually have to work with the conservatives in a common endeavour.

I think there has been a slight SNP slippage since August. TNS were finding SNP at or above 60% in some polls, with them falling back to 58 in their more recent polls. I think the SNP had some increase in the aftermath of the general election (winners' bonus, if you will) and that has slipped away as politics as normal resumes.

There has been a similar effect with the Tory vote in GB polls. They won the election with 37/38. Some polls in July / August put them at or above 40%, now they have fallen back to their election level.

I'm looking through the data - and the 16-24 category has: SNP 42%; Con 23%; Lab 23%. I would be very surprised if the Conservatives are at 23% among 16-24 year olds. For comparison - the Tories are at 21% among over 55s.

It does. What's strange though is that the list vote shows SNP at 53% (among likely voters); Labour at 21% and the Tories at 19% among 16-24 year olds. Could it be the way the question was asked that confused people?

The young are turning to the conservatives eh? I'm not surprised really, to be honest. They are THE alternative. Everyone else is largely in agreement on everything, except indy. If you want immigration controlled, if you want Britain's defences prioritised, if you want to bomb isis, if you want sound public finances - tory. It's got to be. Everyone else is a left wing pussy - and, despite stereotypes - not all the young are convinced by socialism.

Something is certainly happening with the tories. I would agree with the analysis that Corbyn has brought some lefties back from SNP / Green, but almost the same number of right wingers have abandoned labour for the tories. Tories now pushing into the high teens, almost overtaking Labour. Unthinkable just a few years ago. And when SNP / Labour start tinkering with taxes to further fund the unproductive part of society, I would expect the tories to grow even further - second party maybe?

I've been doing a lot of canvassing in recent weeks.The SNP vote looks pretty solid.This poll is showing a 10% slump in support,which I think is highly unlikely.However,it'll go in the mix with all the other polls.

A tenth of the folk who,in the previous poll,said they'd vote SNP,are now saying they won't.Roughly.And that's a slump which nobody else has detected.I don't think it has happened.I think your poll of polls is more like where we are and where we've been.

Don't rely on canvassing as an indicator of anything - people will just tell you whatever they think you want to hear. I remember yes canvassers being gobsmacked that areas they thought were 90% yes turned out majority no.

"People who write RISE press releases might want to note that the SNP are now just 5% higher on the constituency vote than they were in the 2011 election, and just 2% higher on the list. "

It seems like the SNP constituency vote is backed up by support for independence, and the unionist vote is split, and likely to remain split if a traditional left/right battle on taxes emerges with income tax devolution on the way.

The only way independence support could make up good numbers on the list is if there was an official 'Independence Party' running on the list vote only. Backed by big names originally from the SNP like Jim Sillars.

The problem with RISE and the Greens, is that they don't have enough individual support to not split the vote, and that SNP voters don't trust them enough, especially after the Greens voting against FFA. SNP tactical voting on the list will only work if there is an unofficial SNP offshoot party - with similar aims, but different enough to not be challenged by the Electoral Commission as the same party.Perhaps SNP members that want a more direct approach to independence.

Maybe Alex Salmond himself could quit Westminster and head a new Scottish Independence Party for the list vote. That would guarantee a good chunk of the SNP 2nd vote.

"It would also guarantee an intervention from the Electoral Commission"

Just curious. Why would it?

If any SNP politicians quit and set up a new party, it would still be a new party. Of course there would be suspicions they were still the SNP in disguise. But how exactly could that be proved?

There could be one very obvious reason given - seeing the current SNP leadership as 'weak' on independence, and wanting to push for a second referendum in a shorter time scale.Along with a few other significant policy differences. eg pledging no higher income taxes in Scotland than England.

If you do have e.g. Lab to Con as some sort of tactic, it's a big mistake. They're splitting the constituency vote which could hand just about every constituency to the SNP (as per May's GE) giving the SNP a majority without any need for the list.

Anyway, looks like MoE noise to me on the SNP share The average of the last two MORI polls is, well, 53%, as per the overall PoP average.

When you have some polls saying SNP up a bit (TNS), other polls saying SNP down a tad (MORI, Survation) and others saying No change (panelbase, Yougov), and all changes are within ~+/-3% of the mean, you've no choice but to conclude 'nothing to see here' / 'steady as she goes'.

Yes, but the "up a bit" with TNS was a reversion to the mean. It looks like there's been a slight long-term drop in the SNP vote with TNS as well. That's almost inevitable - 62% support was never going to last.

Strange how your "support the winner" effect didn't translate to the indyref Skier. The unionist parties won the argument, won the vote, have been proven correct by ensuing events - yet have spent the last year getting kicked around as if they were the political wing of the Man-Boy Love Association.

Perhaps your theory doesn't stand up and SNP support has indeed fallen in real terms.

To state the obvious, there's a fair number of people who are between SNP and all of the three unionist parties, and Greens as well. Fairly small things can make them swing from one to the other, and the media have made a concerted attack recently, with police, NHS, individuals like Alex Neil, universities and colleges, even land reform.

It's not surprising that the swingers have swung back, and I personally would take this poll, even with the public sector shortfall, as a reasonably genuine poll of how people are right at the moment, but plus is might be a bit outlierish as well, though I wouldn't rely on that.

I'd say the media and the parties have put an extra push on recently to try to halt the upwards trend of SNP support and they've succeeded. The question will be have they themselves peaked too early with their counter-attack? That's a question the SNP will have to answer with positive action. However, I think the SNP have been content to dig in and let it all wash over them - it really is too early.

Yes I agree, it does show that this ridiculous tactical voting is dangerous, as like this poll itself from the last one, the actual vote could change fairly dramatically in the few days after the last poll before the Holyrood election, particularly its fieldwork, and deny the SNP an overall majority. If Scotland Votes shows 66 constituency seats, that's a miniscule margin over the 64 half of MSPs plus 1 for presiding officer, i.e. just 1, and list seats would be needed for comfort.

It makes you wonder, if another ref were to be held, say, next year, how would the yes (or, more likely 'leave') campaign cope? They'd be absolutely slaughtered from all angles and I could see it ending 60-40 in favour of union.

I had a wee gander at the Green Party of Scotland website tonight. They are pro indy but want a separate currency and a comprehensive study conducted into the currency, how it would work, the pros and cons etc.

Fair play to them - I'd sooner sell my erse than vote Green but at least they are being kind of responsible about it. So anyone thinking that an SNP / Green coalition would work smoothly with an indyref agreed at first meeting is kidding themselves. The SNP would have to agree to a separate currency, fully costed - and then the Scottish people would promptly say "no thanks", again.

What really surprised me was the SNP had several years and all their experts (joke) tae come up with a new Scottish currency and they failed. So why would the people vote Yes in another referendum when faced with such incompetents permanently running the country. We would end up like Ireland did with tens of thousands leaving for good.

GWC, the SNP calculated (correctly) that a new Scottish currency would go down like a lead balloon with the Scottish public, who rather like GBP and wish to continue using it. So they got themselves all twisted and contorted trying to claim indy Scotland could continue with the pound. Salmond isn't stupid. He knew that would happen - but obviously thought it preferable to suggesting a completely new currency.

No doubt the upper echelons still think in this way. But if somehow the SNP found themselves 3 seats short of a majority, with the Greens winning 3, then they'd be forced to do things the Green way.

There are people out there who wish to vote tactically on the list to maximise the number of pro indy MSPs regardless of party. This could result in the situation I have described.

Aldo, I take your point however if we voted yes we were not getting the GBP we were leaving the Union and everything that went with the Union agreement.Salmond should have had a new currency plan whether the Scottish people wanted the GBP or not.Anon. You should go for an all UK vote for Scottish Independence you could win. I reckon the English have had enough of your whinging and hard done to stories. My Carlisle relatives just say there they go again.

Aldo, the 'Yes' campaign would be called the 'Yes' campaign, not the 'Leave' campaign. You've tried that nonsense before, and you've been corrected before. The Electoral Commission didn't just approve the question last year - they suggested it.

But they insisted the EU question be changed from "yes/no" to avoid positivity bias. It stands to reason they would also apply that decision to any future independence referendum in Scotland.

If positivity bias exists - and they admit it does - then you either neutralise it by changing to "leave / remain" or you give the unionists their turn with the "yes" response next time i.e. "Should Scotland remain part of the United Kingdom?"

The idea that any future referendum will be in exactly the same format as before is fanciful. In fact, I think the Scottish referendum influenced the electoral commission's decision re the EU ref question.

I certainly think Tory back benchers will be less likely to be against independence next time round.Theyll be far more likely to press for talks pre referendum if it looks from the outset that Yes has a fairly good chance of winning.

I was thinking more along the lines of an English parliament and "ENP", both as yet nonexistant but could conceivably come into being, pass an indyref and secure a "yes" vote before a majority for independence is achieved in Scotland. You would then, of course, have your wish - by default - unless Scotland, Wales and NI were to formally remain "the UK".

It isn't at 50-50. That result is arrived at from dodgy averaging involving an absolute stonker of an outlier. And even if the position were 50-50, these polls are taken in the absence of an actual campaign and complete absence of the possibility of one any time in the near future. Any semblance of parity would evaporate if the situation were real and the economic costs being openly and routinely debated.

Aldo, when are you going to start flogging this dead horse? I'm almost getting embarrassed for you. There is no "stonking outlier" here. The best poll for Yes is only 2% better than the second-best poll. The best sign that "outliers" aren't the issue is the fact that even the MEDIAN average has Yes on 49.2%.

There is no credible way of averaging the polls that produces a No lead of any significance. There just isn't. If you think there is, explain your working. I could do with a laugh.

It still indicates that Scotland is more likely to choose independence before England does.Most reasonable people would agree.I wonder what odds the bookies would give.Going back to your post at 9.21,I would tend to agree that a future referendum might not be an exact re run of the last one.The SNP have indicated that they won't hold another until Yes has been well ahead consistently for a year.In such circumstances Westminster might realise they won't get a No vote,so negotiate the best deal they can then back a Yes vote.They could then come out of it claiming they'd facilitated a new,close relationship whilst getting a good,fair deal for rUK.Theres plenty precedent for it.

"It stands to reason they would also apply that decision to any future independence referendum in Scotland."

Sigh. I think the best guide to what the Electoral Commission would do in Scotland is what they did in Scotland only LAST YEAR. Is this penetrating your skull, Aldo - the question used was the Electoral Commission's OWN SUGGESTION!

James, as older polls drop out of your poll of polls and as new ones are included, we will see a return to a small no lead. Of that, I am sure. Unless, of course, TNS produces another MASSIVE yes lead that keeps the poll of polls on 50-50, in which case you have to ask yourself why is one polling company being allowed to distort the overall picture?

The Electoral Commission can change its mind. There was obvious positivity bias in the last referendum. The mere act of saying 'yes' gives people a rush. This was evident in the referendum and I would expect the electoral commission to enforce a more neutral question and answer next time. You learn from your mistakes - and presumably that includes the electoral commission.

There will certainly be a concerted effort to get it changed. You cannot work on the assumption that a referendum taking place 5 / 10 / 15 years from now will be worded in the exact same way.

It might be useful to start doing polling on alternative questions - otherwise all these polls could be perfectly useless.

On the question and answer change, it's not just my wishful thinking James. We have the EU referendum decision and we also have the fact that Salmond - the leader of the main separatist party at the time - admitted that it helped them.

I'm not saying it will change - just that it may change. And if it does change, that will impact the polls. I understand why you are resistant to the idea - it would undermine a lot of your work here. But you can't rule it out.

Skier. Do you read other comment? Naw my Carlise relatives some born in Scotland do not winge they laugh at Nat sis whingers. They are working class and have conditions no better no worse than uz Scots, That is why they laugh .They took in my relatives from Glasgow during the Blitz. They are British. You are a narrow back fool. Eat yer purrage.

I've outlined the many ways in which the poll is a rarity, James. 53% yes before don't knows are removed is pretty much unprecedented, in the history of polling on this issue - even going back long before the SNP ever caught a whiff of power. It is a duff poll whose findings have not been matched before or since. Including it in your calculations is spin. But this is politics and spin is as much a part of it as the ballot box so you can be forgiven for that. Just be prepared for people to call you out on it.

Salmond admitted the referendum question gave the nationalists an advantage. People like to say "yes" to things. I was told by a nationalist on Facebook during the indyref that I need to say "yes" to things in life - just jump in there and just do it. I asked him if that included heroin and he just scoffed at me. However, I think I had a point. Saying yes to bad things is not positive.

But, as demonstrated by the aforementioned individual, people will say "yes" just to not say "no". Salmond knew this and has admitted its effect on the debate and the voters.

So it would seem that running the same question again with the same yes / no response would be deeply unfair to the pro UK side, when bias has been admitted and acknowledged.

Aldo, the simple fact that No won the first referendum shows that Yes didn't have an automatic advantage.

I think the question could have been better as the word 'independent' implies 'isolated' to some - when we would remain in Europe and have many close links with the rest of Britain. Maybe the word 'sovereign' would have been more accurate, and would have translated the political status of the Scottish people into political power. Should we govern ourselves as a sovereign nation?

But the simple fact is that a precedent exists now, and the main objective is for a question to be clear and simple.

BTW, Even Ruth Davidson admits you can't put a lid on democracy if there is a mandate for a second referendum.

If fewer people vote for the pro independence parties than voted yes in 2014, then that mandate is questionable. Not so much a mandate as a boxer angrily demanding a rematch after being fairly beaten.

Also, it is not accurate to say that the yes camp did not have an inbuilt advantage simply because no won. The advantage could still have been there and, but for that advantage, the no tally would have been higher.

Word reaches me that some of the most amusing of the out of touch westminster bubble twits are beside themselves at this one poll 'Scottish tory surge'.

Far be it from me to prevent them making a complete twat of themselves yet again, (as they do every single time the mythical Scottish tory surge turns out to be the hilarious bollocks we al know it is) but even for them they seem utterly clueless about what's coming and coming fairly soon.

Next year (certainly by the time of the Scottish elections) Hameron and the stupid party are going to be neck deep in their EUshambles and split and no amount of weak posturing from the inept Hameron can stop that split or stop it from having an inevitable impact on the tory party even here.

Hameron's placewoman Ruth has about as much chance of keeping a lid on the tory splits and infighting as she has of becoming first minister, which is zero.

Leaving aside the fact that you are self-evidently too stupid to understand the clear implication of "even here" - should I feel the need to converse with a low I.Q. sub Daily Mail BritNat like yourself Aldo, I'll actually say so.

Until then take it as a given that I do not give a flying fuck what your witless opinion is on this matter. Even more so than usual following your disgusting display of racism after the Paris attacks.

Just because James and a few others indulge you and the bigot GWC (for comedy reasons admittedly) certainly doesn't mean I have to. So be a good little twit and fuck right off. MMmmkay? :o)

The strange thing is how the Nat sis are getting away with the anti Tory porkie pies when they carry out similar Tory policies and blame the Tories and the Jokes are swallying it. Mein Gott glad I have a sense of humour and can enjoy my claret. Wake up Jocks and smell the shite in your midst.

What is sad Aldo is Cameron is wiping the floor with the Nat sis and my Great Labour Party. Labour need to expose the Nat si Tartan Tories and your Tories for having the same policies. We need to get rid of Corbyn and his leftie fascist supporters. We will prevail and will be back. Tony Blair is still young.

The tories will rule the UK as long as the SNP control the vast majority of seats in Scotland. English people don't want a Labour Party held to ransom by hard left separatists who have no regard for - and in many cases actively dislike - their country. We saw what it did to a moderate Labour leader. Can you imagine how the country will react when presented with the possibility of a Corbyn-Sturgeon partnership? It'll be a blood bath!

The only way out for the left is to unite under a moderate labour leader and support him / her rather than a collection of the strange and not so wonderful (SNP, Plaid, Green etc). That's the only way. Scottish independence isn't going to happen. The vote was no and now the economic argument has completely collapsed. So the only way that Scots can get rid of the tories is to vote for a sensible Labour leader along with much of the rest of the UK. I wouldn't hold my breath.

Hey Mick I knew a guy called Porkie because he like f,n pigs. The former SNP spin docktur his said that the SNP lacked intellectual integrity. The Scottish people in jobs can be thankful for the sensibles votin NAW. Go an shake yer man nae dribbling oan yer kilt.

Mick, does your mother know you use such foul language. I mean, it's her computer, her basement....

For months you have been gleefully predicting a serious tory split over Europe. That doesn't mean it will actually happen and, even if it does, do you really think they will lose to the Corbynatrix in 2020, whatever happens?

You - we - are ALL going to be ruled by the conservatives for a very long time. Scottish independence could have been a way out but you blew that one well into the long grass didn't you?

At no point have I said anything racist but I have come to expect this of people like yourself - if you don't agree with someone, throw labels at them.